FCC Analyzing Wireless Spectrum For 5G Networks

[IInuyasha74]

Numerous businesses and government organizations have been deliberating on the development of 5G networks for some time now. Not much has been decided for the new 5G networks, but the FCC is beginning to close in on an exact 5G standard.

FCC Analyzing Wireless Spectrum For 5G Networks : Read more

 

[falchard]

What is this <mod edit> The FCC is deliberating on things they were enacted to deliberate on instead of enforcing censorship when they have no actual authority to do so?

<Watch your language>

 

[mrmez]

I get technology has to keep advancing, but given the 100Mb/s+ speeds of 4G, whats the point of having 500Mb/s? on 5G when your provider can still only provide 5Mb/s most of the day.

 

[Beholder88]

This is nothing but good news. As stated, this will allow the future of mobile networks to approach something more like fiber and provide speeds that are unheard of today on a wireless network. Not only speed, but reliability and consistency will follow. We may not have a "need" for 500Mb+ transfer speeds, but opening up that bandwidth will give more customers higher speeds and reduce congestion on existing mobile networks.

 

[problematiq]

[quotemsg=18155869,0,83547]I get technology has to keep advancing, but given the 100Mb/s+ speeds of 4G, whats the point of having 500Mb/s? on 5G when your provider can still only provide 5Mb/s most of the day.[/quotemsg]

A large reason is for "The Internet of 'Feces' <mod edit>" (IoT/IoS) they are expecting with 5G to connect cars, roads, your fridge, dogs chew toy, ect. sadly that dogs toy one isn't even a joke. Of course it's still in planning so don't expect 5G in the next 2 years. But you are right, the ISP's are not known for quickly updating (or ever updating) their backbone. In the ISP's defense...ish the US is really large area to cover.

<Watch your language> I didn't coin the phrase but whatever... Fine.

 

[danlw]

Great news! Faster speeds means less network congestion, and that means higher data caps. Maybe once 5G is widely available, data plans will start in the 10GB/mo range (hopefully more). Maybe further down the road wireless data could actually be a feasible affordable replacement for wired internet in areas that don't have fiber. (Much the same way cell phones became a feasible affordable replacement to land line telephones)

 

[jungleboogiemonster]

The spectrum being allocated by the FCC is in a higher bandwidth range than 4G, which means decreased distances and building penetration. Unless additional cell sites are used there will be more dead spots and rural areas will once again be left without service.

 

[problematiq]

[quotemsg=18157910,0,145373]The spectrum being allocated by the FCC is in a higher bandwidth range than 4G, which means decreased distances and building penetration. Unless additional cell sites are used there will be more dead spots and rural areas will once again be left without service.[/quotemsg]

You are correct. They are expecting with 5G that you are going to see access points being deployed in a more dense network. they are also expecting it will be more of a metro network more than anything so out here in the rural's people won't see a change. I've heard some say maybe deployed in street lamps?

 

[targetdrone]

[quotemsg=18157737,0,2137943][quotemsg=18155869,0,83547]I get technology has to keep advancing, but given the 100Mb/s+ speeds of 4G, whats the point of having 500Mb/s? on 5G when your provider can still only provide 5Mb/s most of the day.[/quotemsg]

A large reason is for "The Internet of Sh!t" (IoT/IoS) they are expecting with 5G to connect cars, roads, your fridge, dogs chew toy, ect. sadly that dogs toy one isn't even a joke. Of course it's still in planning so don't expect 5G in the next 2 years. But you are right, the ISP's are not known for quickly updating (or ever updating) their backbone. In the ISP's defense...ish the US is really large area to cover.[/quotemsg]

IoT will be the death of us.

There IS a reason why the Galactica had manual, un-networked toilets and water faucets. Now the Cylons(or Chinese/Russian Hackers) will be able to shut down our power gird because someones chew toy didn't get the latest security patch, likely because the manufacture did the Android thing and never intended to issue future security updates.

 

[Matt_550]

At this rate mobile internet will be faster then home internet. Internet providers better get on the bus and beef up their networks. If they do not I think more people may investigate getting wifi through their mobile service provider.

 

[canoeguy1]

3.5 GHz frequencies aren't very practical for macro cell deployment. The attenuation from interfering objects is too high, and the range is too short. It sounds like 5G will depend almost purely on small cells. That works fine in urban cores, but it means that suburbs and rural areas may never see it. That includes freeways and any high-speed road, where handoff between small cells doesn't make sense. Also, a high density of small cells means a huge backhaul problem. You have connect all those cells with fiber.

 

[IInuyasha74]

[quotemsg=18158070,0,2137943][quotemsg=18157910,0,145373]The spectrum being allocated by the FCC is in a higher bandwidth range than 4G, which means decreased distances and building penetration. Unless additional cell sites are used there will be more dead spots and rural areas will once again be left without service.[/quotemsg]

You are correct. They are expecting with 5G that you are going to see access points being deployed in a more dense network. they are also expecting it will be more of a metro network more than anything so out here in the rural's people won't see a change. I've heard some say maybe deployed in street lamps? [/quotemsg]

Both of you are correct. The FCC has been pushing for the use of small roof top cell towers for years and is still pushing for that to help with that on one side of the problem. They are also counting on reduced interference from other devices to help make up for the transmission distance, because current 3G/4G networks technically transmit further, but they also run into a greater amount of interference that eventually causes their signal to degrade to the point of being unusable. So it is hard to tell exactly how much difference there will be in terms of transmission distance 5G still won't transmit further, but it may not be reduced as much as you might think in a city.

 

[danlw]

Rural customers will still benefit indirectly. If the higher bandwidth in urban cores pushes bandwidth caps up, it would go up for everybody on that carrier. So even if a Verizon customer, for example, can't get 5G in a rural area, they may still be able to enjoy 4G or 3G and not have to worry as much about exceeding their cap. This assumes they are considering getting all their internet through a cellular network rather than through a potentially slower landline or satellite network.

 

[toadhammer]

This isn't just about your downloads. LTE and newer technologies use packets for voice, data, and signalling. Faster connections between the mobile device and cell tower means a less congested network as each device gets its business done and gets out of the way of others on the same cell.

I've been out of that business for a while, but I assume the trend continues toward more cells covering smaller areas, so picking frequencies with less building penetration is in line with that. Few years ago industry thought there would be a boom of in-building picocells. Whatever...yes, signal penetration will still matter so what will actually happen is the other trend where all bands will get reused for 5G too.

 

[toadhammer]

Highway and rural cells: even today with 3G and 4G networks towers can have some channels dedicated to daisy-chaining over the air so not every cell tower needs fiber. 5G may end up being a mesh network so coverage would be filled in even more by devices.

 

[skit75]

So I was watching some of Tom Wheeler's speech last night on CSPAN. I was hoping someone could clear up a little tidbit I heard about FCC getting "out of the way" of the private sector and allowing them to dictate 5G specifications and how that relates to recent Net Neutrality/Title II reclassification of the ISPs.

Would 5G in its finished specification not fall under Title II and that is what is supposed to incentivize development? Would investment into developing 5G as a utility be worth it for the private sector under Title II regulations or would the ISP's get some arbitrary "wild-west" time frame to recoup development costs because 5G is not specifically outlined under Net Neutrality legislation?

I ask because, I am old enough to remember having a land line in my house but I haven't had one in more than 10 years now and none of my friends do either. And while not all telcoms are ISPs, some of them are.

 

[mrmez]

I'm still kinda annoyed they're dropping 2G.
If the USA is a big place, AUS is almost as big with just 8% of the population.
Vast distances between towns once you get out of a city.
2G gave much better range (and IMHO, voice quality), along with great battery life for talk.

Depending on your carrier here, networks can be horribly oversubscribed.
I'm with what's considered the best provider, and while speeds and coverage are always good, my $80AUD/month plan gets me just 1Gb/m.

IoT/IoS... hahaha. True. Don't forget the apps to tell you how you slept (cos you can't figure that out by yourself) and a watch to tell you you've taken a million steps today, but you're still just as fat.

 

[falchard]

It's good to hear Tom Wheeler is planning to continue the FCC tradition of not getting in the way of ISPs.
All ISPs fall under Title II. The exceptions were for data only companies like cable providers and regional ISPs. Most mobile companies were subject to Title II before the push for Net Neutrality since they provide voice service. The main things Title II did is mandatory E911 and resolving radio frequency usage by telephone companies. The reason the data communication companies were regulated under a different set of codes starting in the '80s was because they did not use phone systems so could not be used to contact 911, and did not use radio frequencies for communication.

 

[gorfmaster1]

5G could be good, or could be bad, but as history has proven, ISP's of any kind are greedy. So faster speeds means more cost and more getting raped by large corporations. Think back when they went from 3G to 4G, They went from unlimited Data, to data caps and increased costs. What do you think its going to do when it goes to 5G. they have to pay for the tower upgrades somehow...